DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271D was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra). We accordingly set aside the orders

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271D was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra). We accordingly set aside the orders

DCIT, CENTRALCIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI vs. SUBRAMANIAM THANU, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Cross

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.785, 786, 787 & 788/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 40, 41, 42 & 43/Chny/2023 (In I.T.A. Nos.785 To 788/Chny/2023)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the penalty under section 271D was without any satisfaction and, therefore, no such penalty could be levied. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Laxmi Rice Mills (supra). We accordingly set aside the orders

VIPIN KUMAR,HOSUR vs. ITO, SALEM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.487/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Vipin Kumar, The Income Tax Officer, Hig – 5, Avalapalli Housing Board, V. Central Circle, Brindavan Nagar, Phase Vii,Tnhb Salem. Hosur – 636 109. Pan : Aafpb 9262 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Housing Board, v. Central Circle, Brindavan Nagar, Phase VII,TNHB Salem. Hosur – 636 109. PAN : AAFPB 9262 Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Lakshmichand Nahata, FCA ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 05.05.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 15.07.2016 आदेश

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

271. However, according to him, the acquisition could not come through, due to zone ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 39 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 conversion problem. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, intention of the assessee was to start its MBA course in this property, since Chamiers Road property was not available. According to him Shri. V. Sampath had refunded

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

271. However, according to him, the acquisition could not come through, due to zone ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 39 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 conversion problem. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, intention of the assessee was to start its MBA course in this property, since Chamiers Road property was not available. According to him Shri. V. Sampath had refunded

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, VELLORE

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

271. However, according to him, the acquisition could not come through, due to zone ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 39 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 conversion problem. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, intention of the assessee was to start its MBA course in this property, since Chamiers Road property was not available. According to him Shri. V. Sampath had refunded

VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,VELLORE vs. DCIT, CC IV(1), CHENNAI

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas that of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

271. However, according to him, the acquisition could not come through, due to zone ITA Nos2125 to 2128 :- 39 -: & 2219 to 2222 /2017 conversion problem. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, intention of the assessee was to start its MBA course in this property, since Chamiers Road property was not available. According to him Shri. V. Sampath had refunded

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. S

house property' and thereby disallowing exemption claimed u/s 10A of Rs.90,37,808/-. Consequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the AO. The quantum assessment was taken up in first appeal by the assessee and the issue of treating rental income from IT Park as business income and consequently the claim of exemption

D.HARINDRAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

property tax was paid for the super structure and there was no building in the nature of the residential house. Therefore, the assessing officer found that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 54/54F. Accordingly, the assessing officer levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c

M.MALARVIZHI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 8(5), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.779/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2013-14 Smt. M. Malarvizhi, The Income Tax Officer, 18, Mettu Theru, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 8(5), Kumananchavadi, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 056. [Pan:Apjpm2455H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Pranay J. Shah, C.A ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, Chennai Dated 30.01.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal Are Reproduced As Under: “1. For That The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 9, Chennai U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961Is Opposed To Law, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. For That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Passing The Order Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Herein Without Noting That The Notice Issued By The 2

house property income and huge long term capital gain and even after receiving notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee has filed her return of income admitting only ₹. 2,15,130/- as income as against income admitted during the course of assessment proceedings of ₹.1,92,62,150/-. In view of the above and since 4 I.T.A. No.779/Chny/19

J.RAVICHANDRAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D. S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.555/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2001-02 Mr. J.Ravichandran Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.3/50, Lakshmi Talkies Road, Business Ward Xiv (1) Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 034 Chennai – 600 006 [Pan: Aafpr2178D]

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has made the claim of interest on borrowings for renovation of house :: 2 :: property

C.ELANGO,TIRUPPUR vs. ACIT, TIRUPPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

c) of the Act and is of the opinion that the explanations 1(A) of sub section (1) of section 271(1) is applicable to the assessee. In penalty proceedings, the Ld. AR of the assessee filed detailed reply to show cause notice and explained that the assessee has sold land and net consideration is invested in construction of Residential

IRIS ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Iris Engineering Industries Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., (Now Known As M/S. Ravilla Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2, Aerospace Industries P. Ltd.), No. 178, Coimbatore. Aerodrome Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore 641 005. [Pan:Aaaci8996G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Coimbatore Dated 31.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

property to M/s. Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd. for a total consideration of ₹.8.52 crores. Based on the findings of the survey and the materials unearthed during the proceedings, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued since there was reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of section

EDWARDSAM,TRICHY vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), TRICHY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 728/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Edward Sam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 4/189, Priyanka Nagar, Ward -2(2), Kattur Post, Trichy 620 019. Trichy. [Pan:Aaape2757N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Dated 29.04.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Retired Employee Of Bhel & Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 06.07.2011 Admitting An Income Of ₹.5,92,178/- After Deducting House Property Loss Of ₹.53,981/-. The Case Has Been Selected For Scrutiny Since

house property loss of ₹.53,981/-. The case has been selected for scrutiny since 2 I.T.A. No. 728/Chny/23 the assessee had a cash deposit of ₹.27,31,700/- in BHEL Employees Co-operative Bank Ltd., Trichy. After considering the submissions and details against statutory notices, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. D.PARTHASARATHY, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

property on the date of transfer. The assessing officer found that the assessee has concealed the particulars while filing the return of income and made a wrong claim. Therefore, the assessing officer levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars according to the department representative, the assessing officer levied penalty under

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2741 To 2743/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Rr Industries Ltd., No.94/95, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaacr 3594 H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr.M.K. Rangaswamy, Ca : Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.Cit : 11.02.2026 : 18.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Hereinafter In Short `The Ld.Cit(A)'), Chennai-18, Dated 07.08.2025, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short `Ay') 2008-09 To 2010-11 Confirming The Penalty- Imposed U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'). :: 2 ::

house property' and thereby disallowing exemption claimed u/s 10A of Rs.90,37,808/-. Consequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the AO. The quantum assessment was taken up in first appeal by the assessee and the issue of treating rental income from IT Park as business income and consequently the claim of exemption

M/S. R R INDUSTRIES LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy. Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2741 To 2743/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11 M/S. Rr Industries Ltd., No.94/95, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaacr 3594 H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement V. The Dcit, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr.M.K. Rangaswamy, Ca : Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.Cit : 11.02.2026 : 18.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Hereinafter In Short 'The Ld.Cit(A)'), Chennai-18, Dated 07.08.2025, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short 'Ay') 2008-09 To 2010-11 Confirming The Penalty- Imposed U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'). :: 2 ::

house property' and thereby disallowing exemption claimed u/s 10A of Rs.90,37,808/-. Consequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the AO. The quantum assessment was taken up in first appeal by the assessee and the issue of treating rental income from IT Park as business income and consequently the claim of exemption

ITO, CHENNAI vs. SHANMUGHAM RAMAMOORTHY, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 402/Chny/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 & C.O. No. 59/Chny/2017[In I.T.A. No. 402/Chny/2017] The Income Tax Officer, Shri Shanmugham Ramamoorthy, Non Corporate Ward 23(2), Vs. No. 2, Sarathy Street, Pallavaram, 130-B, Mudichur Road, West Chennai 600 043. Tambaram, Chennai 600 045. [Pan:Aaapr2796J] (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri K. Ravi, Jcit Assessee By : Ms. Sushma Harini, A., Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 10, Chennai Dated 18.11.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 Passed Against Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and sold a property at door No.70/A/1, New Door No.8/70-A1, Srinivasa Perumal Koil 2 I.T.A. No.402/Chny/17 & C.O. No. 59/Chny/17 Street, Cantonment Pallavaram and the sale price of the land and building